Member Info for Dip666

Because they'll be invited for a Peer Review as an MRE that is approved and reviewed by them will lend much weight to it and ensure closer alignment to a future release from them or their own used in the DFS more closely.

Plenty of external persons who'll be involved in the MRE with technical and peer reviews such as SRK again perhaps LP, read up on the process - much the same way GGP as partners are given drafts to feedback into studies from NCM currently.

Look at all the partners used last time from an excerpy from q LSE webinar last july:

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=358

- because previously I’ve identified and talked about that people should have confidence in our approach but now I can probably just touch on that briefly so we came out with the updated resource we had Stuart Masters who actually sits on the JORC committee co-signed that as our confident person ,

- we had SRK consulting come in and endorse as a second peer review in terms of the reserves

- a similar process where we had EnTech come in and revisit the optimizations of that mine plan, had SRK come in endorse and again it was second peer review

- that information could then be fed into SRK to think about an overall technical report, overall understanding of the exploration opportunity this information could be fed into PWC for a very structured and comprehensive approach to a formal valuation (NOTE: for the 5% Option Exercise)| built up on supported data overlaying that with the corporate advisor to make sure we understood it commercially

- and then we used another group which included Nev Power some of you might know was head of you know 50 billion Fortescue to come in and help quarterback that with me in terms of making sure we thought through the technical and commercial overlay

NEM may well drag their feet during a peer review if they have less than friendly intentions but IF there is a reason to get an MRE out quickly and not play nice partners they also can't stop GGP from doing so. Any more than NCM could with the Option Exercise.

Therefore not an issue IMO, although of course we would hope the new partnership is a close one.

Shaun's signposted the kind of increase we might expect based on current CAGR and I'm expecting the same kind of metrics/methodology to be applied as previous MRE's unless a compelling reason to not do so.

Starbright, what are you expecting in the mining plan then as Bamps says? Flesh out your scenarios a bit than these loose implications without any backing, what signs have you seen to indicate your scenario?

I'm expecting 3mtpa production profile as signposted since the PFS (which had a threshold of +/- 25%) and Shaun's comms doesn't suggest any change of mining method, you really think he's that in the dark when the team have been involved with the DFS and had drafts to provide input on? More production means more revenue too to counterbalance costs and should help ease any increase in costs since the PFS, we're starting from a good base of profitability after all.

So the biggest unknown to me is how much AISC might have increased as I do expect an increase given inflation having cooled down now but things haven't got cheaper but of course a lot of factors such as asset price forecasts used that are unknowns to try and predict the DFS too closely with our lack of proximity to the project as shareholders.

But we know that is something the industry is dealing with globally, there are optimisations that are being integrated into plans and studies to minimise these and Newcrest/Newmont have been mining through all kinds of economic cycles and like all corporations have long term policies in place to control costs due to the nature of their business. I think we'll maintain a lower industry AISC as costs have increased for everyone so we'll maintain our relative competitive advantage as such as a lower cost mining operation - IMO of course and DYOR.

Older thread on GGPChat considering what counter measures might be in place:

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=579

Ha, sry MFU I'd started my post and then took a call so didn't see you'd added here too when I pressed post message!

Link to the post :-)

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7117736217982509056/

Sourced thanks to Dot on TG, work continues at pace it appears :-)

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7117736217982509056/

Post text:

Congratulations to the Regroup civil team that all worked fantastically in delivering over 200,000m2 of Evaporation Ponds for the Havieron mine some 60kms east of Telfer.

The team completed early in schedule and on budget giving the opertunity to also undertake variations to contract in delivering over 32kms of road widening into the mine camp.

Well done 👏

With thanks also to our supporting sub contractors- Avalon Group with final trim grading and GPS dozer and Walton Mechanical in fitter servicing and plant support on site 👍

Hi 5x5 - for sure another example of a badly worded RNS as is par for the course in investor comms across the market :-)

I think the best approach is wait for clarity and I know Upside who does a great job with the TG group and also has some access with submitting questions to the UFO team has asked if they can clarify this clause, hopefully they respond and we can close this off.

No point arguing amongst ourselves about a badly worded phrase until we hear from UFO team directly :-)

It's worth remembering that Wyloo as Shaun pointed out have no need for cash and want the exposure to our assets and would be a hindrance for a bidder in all probability, especially a low ball attempt :-)

Eye watering IMO has been Shaun's way of describing a valuation offered today that would take a few years for GGP to attain and likely an offer the board would recommend.

There are price points of course that meet an acceptable level to be put to shareholders but that might not be recommended still , back a few years ago in the AGM (2021?) Borelli outlined that it would be incumbent on the company to be able to assess an accurate valuation of GGP/asset to consider against.

We've see that GGP has the capability to do so through the Option Exercise so should this scenario come to fruition we'll have to trust that our highly skilled team would be able to position us as best as possible and we can use our votes accordingly based on our individual opinions on any hypothetical offer :-))

Hi 5x5, just seen this being discussed in TG group and I do think Clause 5c is that if UFO dispose of the project and within that period of 60 months the new owner makes a positive DTM then the performance payment is required.

Best to gain clarity from the company really by contacting them in these sceanrio's.

I invested after the discovery hole for Hav so it is why I am here... if we end up selling the project then I'll be taking the same path as Shaun and I suspect many of the power players we've attracted who came here to build a mining company not manage an explorer and exit unless we've had another large discovery to benefit from the speculation curve on the LC... paying good attention on the exit part this time to avoid an Orphan Period :-)

Not really interested in explorers without a strong opportunity to capitalise on something and just 'potential'... these chat boards are full of folk sat on heavy losses for years or having lost money from previous explorers running out of cash or selling premium projects for peanuts due to lack of ability to fund development and no JV so a 'white knight' pounced and took it off their hands.

The best returns for shareholders IMO are JV or sole ownership into production, a sale to me is a quicker but by far less profitable outcome for us pre-production, but I am sure some would be happy with a takeover and that quicker payday.

@CP - After taking a unexpected tirade from someone I like and have briefly met in person and whom I didn't want to respond in anger in deference to their age, you took the brunt instead when responding to your aspersion my posts were unhelpful in the MRE thread , so I apologise and did not mean to imply your opinion doesn't matter - never a good excuse for being rude :-)

Well what if the decline hitting the ore body is the point at which a DFS is required by way of a clause in the JVA to ensure neither party holds up the project or some calendar date?

Certainly Shaun has intimated there is a sunset for the DFS being published and also stated that a DTM would follow shortly within weeks.

And as we know during the DTM process should one party fail to vote for the project to be green lit the other can purchase their share at FMV... with the party that chose not to consider the project 'feasible' for some reason in a negotiating position that they started off stating a project wasn't feasible to proceed with.

You are a funny one lofty, always the worst interpretation with you?

As I just remarked on TG having had time to read properly, when you look at the key reasons Newmont chose Newcrest, well Havieron fits those to a tee outside initial tier 1 status, plenty of compelling reasons to retain Havieron too, really will depend on whether long term outlook Vs short term ROI in meeting that 2bn target win out, so I'm keeping open minded on how this plays out for us.

Excerpt:

Better operating mines. A better pipeline of projects. More assets located in the world’s best (and least risky) place. And better exposure to copper, the commodity that will underpin the energy transition.

Thanks SaS- full article here :-)

https://www.afr.com/chanticleer/the-aussie-behind-year-s-biggest-deal-bets-on-quality-not-quantity-20230515-p5d8fy

Am I Freddie you idiot, learn to read dimwit and refer to my 8:06am post as I said in that post too and I also evidenced why I considered him amongst those assuming the MRE as a significant catalyst, I mean how thick are you exactly?! You seem to be fixated on me as much as Hydro of late lol

@antigua sure the data is fed into a model but you can then use varying values and methodologies to create an MRE, use different assumptions and techniques so if for example you want to play good partners you stick with say a more conservative report the partner would reflect were they creating the MRE and might be willing to sign off in a peer review or if you are fending off a bid you could stretch the numbers within reason to gain less conservative outcomes but still within guidance for JORC compliance. Hence there not being a 'final draft' yet.

Some thought going into those calculations I sense by waiting for Newmont to take over and see if they want tompwer review and perhaps get some indication of their intentions if not discussed already as some think. Just a theory of course as valid or not as anyone else but only reasons why we're not already going out to external peer review IMO

Whoops I used the wrong thread Antigua!

Will replyin the correct one :-)

Looking forward to Liam's interview with Don, will be interesting to see how his ilk analyse stocks such as GGP and why it now meets his criteria vs previous interactions a few of us have had with him last year and he has the opinion that they are more likely to bid for the remainder of Hav than divest so also interesting as his opinion seems to go against the majority or Shaun's own thoughts on most likely scenario, should be a great interview and exciting opportunity for Liam :-)

@Tig - 'Publish the true MRE and the SP will respond significantly' was posted by you a while back but let's agree 'significantly' is unquantified so could be 1p or could be 10p but again no offence was intended but was I incorrect in my assertion that you are amongst those that think the MRE will be a meaningful catalyst?

Perhaps you can see why I might have thought so? Nothing wrong in that opinion, I just happen to disagree and IMO until Newmont confirm plans for both assets an MRE won't give a sustained rise but do agree one appears likely in Q4 at some point. I don't feel I was rude in expressing an alternative view to you or anyone else.

My post of 8.06am should clarify we're not actually at odds per se, more so I am suggesting the MRE is going to take time to complete as of yet and that I suspect the methodology adapted to calculate the resource will be based on Newmont's desire or not to be involved in a peer review and what plans GGP think they might have for Hav/Telfer and IMO I support this approach.

I would argue besides dealing with that weirdo Freddie who started throwing claims of being a manipulator at me, my posts in this thread have avoided personal attacks and been focused on the topic to hand and been detailed and well structured opinions in the spirit of debate.

@Tig no offence intended and with all due respect length of time investing doesn't correlate to success and I'm old enough to have had plenty of experience in certain fields that you have much less knowledge of, so hardly a child ;-)

Point taken about your thoughts on the MRE not being a share catalyst but read some of the posts in this thread with a calmer demeanor and perhaps be willing to take onboard other opinions too, you've become completely intractable on this topic and again, apologies as no offence was intended.

CP, there are a lot of folk who have filtered you so I suspect plenty more who find your posts less useful than mine and you've shown little working knowledge of business strategy so I don't expect much insight from you but you post away... unlike you I am not going to judge the worthiness of your posts.

But apply some logic, we are most likely about to gain a new majority partner in our one near production project so go and review the excerpts in this thread and clear enough Shaun is going to start off on the right foot and wait for them to takeover and offer them a peer review opportunity before completing the MRE and releasing to market to try and engender a positive relationship from day 1.

Clear as day :-))

Funny things is when you look at this thread you see the usual idiots like Dobbs and Freddie not arguing eloquently about their opinion but making accusations about the motives of other posters as usual.

I haven't said I disagree with an MRE being released within the stated Q4 period but there are valid reasons to consider the approach taken with the methodology applied in calculations of resource and IMO why GGP seem to be waiting for Newmont to become new owners and whether they want to be involved in a peer review.

I also pointed out that it's going to take a while yet as an external peer review and jorc submission still to be completed. And if Newmont take up the offer to peer review a joint MRE will be more meaningful and impactful.

Also that it's not the overall number but the individual categories in the MRE which are of higher commercial value that will matter this close to production and which will impact the DFS. Those that understand how you use drill data and look closely at this data can make an informed opinion where there has been enough drilling or not to add to the previous MREs using the metrics and methodology applied to date too.

Fact is it's not the likes of Dobbs and Freddie2 who give up personal time to share information that helps understand GGP or general things such as MREs you can use on any mining investment is it? Yet they spend all their time accusing those who do of being manipulative when anyone can use that information to make their own opinions with a bit of effort...

Funny that CP as I'm sure I've seen you use excerpts of transcripts to help make your own points in the past, or maybe I imagined you using meaningless blurb, surprised you watch any of then on that basis...

Majority owners in a business hold the upper hand and so we saw NCM exercise that when they turned rather hostile around the Option Exercise so we saw the other side of the pro's of the JV.

Despite this it was a TACTICALLY MINDED INDEPENDENT MRE that ensured a good outcome from a weak position.

The team we have now is even stronger - I would assume they have the right approach now unless as some opine Shaun has joined the dark side and going to shaft us.